Hi. This topic is about the so-called "Big Bang", aka the explosion that created the universe.
I know I'm starting from Page 1 and I probably shouldn't, but hey, I'm bored and would like to give my opinion on things.
First, not an explosion, Avorne used dair5's explanation as an example to what we think actually happened.
What do you think about it?
I think we haven't uncovered everything yet, and there's still progress to be made.
I don't know what is the most correct: Isn't logical to think that a big "KABOOM" created the universe and all it's features, but I really don't have a clear opinion about it...
The making of the Universe in itself has not been entirely explained - we've been unable to decipher what happened prior to the rapid expansion of the singularity that started this all, although we have been able to trace very closely after it happened.
I'm not certain whether the Big Bang theory in it's entirety and in its current form is entirely accurate but I'd say that we're certainly along the right lines of understanding.
Basically that. xD
I believe in the Big Bang 2. The reason Big Bang happened, to my opinion, is God, and no other. Becuase there is no other reason to explain the Big Bang, right?
The common argument of "What came before X" always resolves itself under the flat out answer of "We don't know". That applies to every idea, including God and the Big Bang.
The main perk of Scientific Theory (the most widely known one being the Big Bang) is the evidence, proof and observations we are able to make to help solidify its validity.
The universe is still expanding today, and getting bigger, but colder."
I am unsure if colder is the accurate term. It might be, although if heat was always maintained within the Universe as it expanded it would only become more spread out.
Generally, that wiki info is as accurate as need be, however.
The basic knowledge of everybody about Big Bang is recognizing it as a huge KABOOM!
It is the basic knowledge of most people, but still not correct knowledge (if the Big Bang Theory is correct anyway).
I think you should have read the lines prior to typing that post?
Anyway, my theory is that Big Bang and God are related.
Why exactly?
Creating the Universe piece by piece would be very time-consuming, even for Him.
However a theory of the Big Bang is that time, space and etc were all one thing as the Big Bang was its singularity.
Mind-boggling and I wouldn't try comprehending that, but simply put in the rapid expansion some people had thought it essentially "broke apart" in that respect, creating the Universe we know now.
If that were so, and God cannot create himself, then he would have had to make the Big Bang without being a part of it, which means he would of had to be part of it himself in order to interact with time and space... correct?
If so, he's potentially sadistic :P
I guess He maybe created the Big Bang, the universe beginned and He, uh... edited it.
Why do you feel the need to bring "God" into the equation, might I ask?
Spanding matter could create life and humanity? Who knows?
Abiogenesis is the common term, it's noted to be different to Evolution (being as Evolution is the adaption of life, not life coming from inorganic materials), and is also not directly related to the Big Bang theory either.
Hope this helps.
My theory is a little too complicated to explain.
You'd be surprised by how long posts and etc have been made by people on these forums, give it your best shot.
Science constantly looks for answers whereas religion just stagnates and repeats the same answer over and over.
This, simply. Infact
scientific research on how the mind works has shown that Religion is in a way natural, a semi-rationally instinctive idea made by man to answer the question of where we came from.
The flaws in Religion is that the people whom follow it have...
hindered human progress, even if Religion was not their priority at the time, it was a valuable weapon at the time. (A severe case, but nonetheless valid)
That, and it does not come open to logical and reasonable thinking, when you boil it down. I could go on about this and possibly start a heated debate unintentionally, at which point I'll redirect you to
Christianity FTW for more deep discussion on this matter.
Preemptive measures at its finest, good sir. 8)
This is a basic explanation to a theory that my mind think is plausible.
All you need to do is express why.
With good reason.
Evolution? Monkeys turning onto humans?
A common misconception. As Avorne has quite bluntly pointed out, that is not the case for what people find is modern monkeys evolving into us.
I guess that newer, 21st century scientists are too lazy.
What makes 16th Century Scientists so much more special? The only thing I could think is that if they said the world wasn't flat then they would be burnt at the stake.
If science want to show its theories, it need more researching.
As does your theory? You do understand that from my standpoint this looks pretty darn hypocritical?
AS I SAID, I AIN'T NO SCIENTIST!
This... means nothing, actually man. Do you think I am a Scientist? :P
There are things you should pick up on these threads if you carry on in these discussions, although it does take effort adapting to the common structure present in these threads as well.
You may have seen that I don't imply a lot of things as fact, I nearly always (as I just did right now :P ) add words like "
robably", "mostly", etc, to simply give a proper scale, because on occasion you may meet someone who is so tight-lipped on what people say, it can get very bad.
And losing your temper on him generally doesn't work, :P
The only difference is that newer additions add more shape to the already established theories. But it's not like any major jumps were created between themselves.
We closed it pretty quick, in a way. It's going to become more and more difficult to actually establish large amounts of information now being as technology is being pushed at its brink in some criterias.
I think one of the biggest advancements we could make in our knowledge is learning what
Dark Energy and
Dark Matter really is.
Why would the first thing be the only one that makes sense?
The video I linked sometimes applies to this. Sometimes people establish it as the one truth in their minds, you generally find this with younger children, where they're told something and it sticks to them, even if they're told something contradictory to it afterwards. :P
My theory is on the middle of everything
There's a balance to be achieved.
Unless of course you can prove it happened, trying to make a medium between two theories is optimisitic (which in this case is bad) and unhelpful to actual progress, I'm sorry to say. :<
As I said three times: I am NOT a scientist.
I'll say for the second time xD
That doesn't matter
What is the point to know about it?
Human curiosity.
Or simply being smart, because chicks dig that. 8)
No but seriously, why is humor funny? It's just one of those things that helps on a usual basis, especially intelligence.
Let time go by and maybe an answer reach humanity.
Time doesn't necessarily help, with the expansion of the Universe it certainly won't help as we will begin to lose clarity on objects light years away.
Put dots on a balloon.
Good.
Now blow it up and look at the dots space out.
Same idea here, I would think.
maybe things went a bit overboard
A bit of an over reaction, I think.
I often do the same but I'm trying to get better (you might have noticed lol :P )
I can't imagine Evolution fitting on the Humanity creation.
But you can see the applicability to Penguins?
It doesn't have a road to follow, creatures simply adapt.
Then the living beings evoluted until today
Realistically speaking we're evolving right now. :P
I posted by impulse
Also mentioned in the video I linked. Kind of cool how useful it's being.
It's not like we are any different or were created outside the evolutionary boundaries.
I'd say it's the deepness of our thought processes (and the results of it) that seem most hard to believe by a few people. Although this reminds me of the competition for survival between homo sapiens and homo erectus.
No wait... not sapiens.
It was another name, I can't remember the name of it, but the point is erectus was very human-like, had a muscular advantage but lacked intelligence (especially with the communication parts of the brain being smaller), and that costed the species their survival when homo something won out.
The basic "monkey/primate" stuff seems a little bit "too theoretic" for me...
Did you look at
all those links posted by Avorne in the first page?
Also, if anyone have a topic that explain this I would be happy to learn. Maybe there is one on Avorne's post, but I couldn't found it
Err...
Are you sure you looked at all those links posted by Avorne in the first page?
No. I think that he created the Universe and let it flow freely.
This brings me back to one of my first questions.
Why is a "God" required in this?
such topic makes heated discussions.
At the start it tends to, from what I've seen, although it does cool down after a short while.
You would have to show evidence somehow that your god had to use the big bang for some reason or another, or else there is no objective reason to believe your theory.
You would have to prove God before that. :P
Why heat water and mow coffee if a Expresso machine can do that for you?
That doesn't answer the question. Humans aren't all powerful and thus aren't in the same situation.
You don't need to be a scientist to use an accurate explanation of a theory.
For the record, are you a qualified Scientist?
Technically they aren't even theories but just speculation.
Common misconception? :P
Okay, First of all, where did the matter and everything else come from if there was nothing before? What could have caused this explosion? Not roaming matter, because then where did the matter come from
The "Derived from" argument doesn't really help in anything, as I believe I pointed out earlier in my post xD
It can apply to any theory, as I've said, the answer is "We don't know".
Do you see anything about an explosion there?
Do I see that text as fact? This will roll back into a debate about whether religion is real, in which case that's Christianity FTW, really. But, to just throw it out there anyway, there are 283 pages on Christianity FTW as I type.
God has not yet been proven.
and a highly fictional theory/question/hypothesis:
can it be that black holes "eat up" the wole universe after a very long time and then instandly expends when it hit nothing to suck?
Black Holes are super condensed singularities.
Given how it is able to absorb light through sheer gravitational pull, it kind of wouldn't surprise me if they pulled eachother into themselves, possibly being even more dense.
The same way Stars of Hydrogen exploded and created other elements could be the same way Super-uber Massive Black Holes react.
This will probably be corrected, being as it isn't really backed up, although it's quite nice to think about anyway. xD
Where did the energy even come from?
Same "Deriving from?" argument. :P
oke i should have added that i do not need any religion non-sense
Neither of us do - as said by Freakenstein and the OP already, we should stick on topic (I know I'm replying to every single post but... hey... I'm bored and would like to pitch my 12 cents).
Unless there is something new I'm not aware of, then the answer is "we don't know".
There we go. xD
Like freakenstein said: We don't know.
... It may look a bit like I've already read what people said but that is not the case.
Great minds think alike? (Sarcasm of course)
oh, and quantuum fluctuations can be observed, so it's no only theoretical)
Through simple curiosity.
Can you provide me a link where I can see evidence / proof of this please?
Just to clear up on a quantum level nothing is something. True nothing doesn't actually exist.
Can you go into more detail?
In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction. Behind this, one finds the fundamental notion that a physical property may be "quantized," referred to as "the hypothesis of quantization". This means that the magnitude can take on only certain discrete values. There is a related term of quantum number. An example of an entity that is quantized is the energy transfer of elementary particles of matter (called fermions) and of photons and other bosons.
- Wikipedia, search "Quantum"
So, using this as an explanation (if valid), would you say that minimal physical entity is nothing?
- H
